Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
An insult? See. first you call him a man and now, the Awoken one, as if the title made him more than just a man. Where's the misunderstanding. The purpose of enlightenment is impartiality. Thinking outside our box. But we have limits.
I'm not suggesting that the Buddha's methods are wrong. I simply am open to the possibility that they might be and am open to the possibility the goal might not be that great.
And you are assuming the aim is enlightenment. Not everyone wants to be enlightened. I don't doubt the 8fold path might bring happiness and well-being if I stick with it. But I also know, like any other model the goal is to reprogram oneself. After I'm reprogrammed, of course I'll prefer it. Just like I prefer my ego, right now, than I do buddhism.
Siddhartha Gotama was a man.
Siddhartha Gotama was a man who discovered the path to end suffering.
Siddhartha Gotama was referred to as the Buddha, the Awoken One.
Siddhartha Gotama was a man.
If enlightenment required a brain, it would end at death. If that was the end of it, who would spend their time meditating? Not this cowboy.
Of course it ends at death! Our entire ability to experience ends at death! If this is a universal Buddhist belief then I think I have found the wrong philosophy.
Siddhartha Gotama was a man. Siddhartha Gotama was a man who discovered the path to end suffering. Siddhartha Gotama was referred to as the Buddha, the Awoken One.
Siddhartha Gotama was a man.
Of course it ends at death! Our entire ability to experience ends at death! If this is a universal Buddhist belief then I think I have found the wrong philosophy.
That seems an inescapable conclusion. Happy trails.
Of course it ends at death! Our entire ability to experience ends at death! If this is a universal Buddhist belief then I think I have found the wrong philosophy.
There is no way for me to force you to understand the things I am trying to explain to you. So instead ... I love you
Love is an action. Ignoring me, is not gonna make me gain anything. So you certainly aren't showing me any love
Can you just afford me one small thing though? Can you at least tell me what it is you think I don't understand? I don't want an explanation, just what you think I'm not understanding.
Because I wasn't aware I wasn't understanding something.
Epicurus, your Slandering the Buddha and the Dharma.
While deluding yourself is fine. You will possibly mis-direct others posting on here, then the karmic consequences will be even more severe...
If you don't believe in karma then what can one do?
Firstly, this is a written media so it would more accurately be libeling the Buddha. Secondly, I don't see how you can consider him to be engaging in anything like that.
Asking questions and stating viewpoints in a public forum should be possible without having divine retribution called down on oneself. Epicurus doesn't present himself as a buddhist teacher so how can his heartfelt opinions be said to be wrongdoing?
That seems an inescapable conclusion. Happy trails.
So you believe in rebirth?
And being that I don't, Buddhism isn't possible to follow? I still want to end the suffering of sentient beings. That's much more important than mystical, unprovable metaphysical beliefs such as rebirth, which no rational person has any reason to believe (or disbelieve). It's like the flying spaghetti monster. It can't be proven or disproven, but that is no reason to believe in it.
And being that I don't, Buddhism isn't possible to follow? I still want to end the suffering of sentient beings. That's much more important than mystical, unprovable metaphysical beliefs such as rebirth, which no rational person has any reason to believe (or disbelieve). It's like the flying spaghetti monster. It can't be proven or disproven, but that is no reason to believe in it.
Helping others is a wonderful sentiment. However, I am not sure that Buddhism will make much sense if you believe everything ends at death. Buddhism does not posit a soul, but it does posit that confusion continues. Rebirth is not just something that happens at death-- we are in a constant state of flux.
From my point of view, there is only awareness and its field. Because of our labeling processes we invent ideas like me, mine, I, birth, death, etc. They don't apply to anything substantial. Most certainly there is a connection between the brain and states of consciousness, however that is not exhaustive of all types of cognition, some of which do not require the brain. Otherwise, Republicans would not be able to function and attend Tea Party rallies now, would they?
I don't want to discourage you. There is much to be gained from the writings of Pema Chodron for example on how to deal with life and how to help others. I am just concerned that you understand that karma and some continuity between what we see as separate lives exist. There are many points of view on how that happens. i would just suggest keeping an open mind. Rebirth isn't a simplistic metaphysical notion and not everyone that believes in it thinks that they were the Queen of Sheba or Mandarava in their past life.
Rebirth doesn't mean reincarnation. "You" are reborn from moment to moment. In the sense of "after life" it means that the co-dependent properties that give rise to your stream of consciousness (specifically the 5 aggregates of Form, Feeling, Perception, Consciousness, and Will) will be recycled by the universe and transformed into new phenomena.
The karmic influences that your actions, words, and thoughts have given rise to will continue to manifest in new actions, words, and thoughts. It's constant cause and effect, and in none of this mass of suffering can one point to the concept of an eternal abiding self migrating from one body to the next. The mechanisms involved in transferrence of Karma through the vastness and infinitude of space and time are impossible to comprehend and simple faith in the existence of such mechanisms is all that is needed in order to have comprehension of the path and the reasons for following it.
Love is an action. Ignoring me, is not gonna make me gain anything. So you certainly aren't showing me any love
Can you just afford me one small thing though? Can you at least tell me what it is you think I don't understand? I don't want an explanation, just what you think I'm not understanding.
Because I wasn't aware I wasn't understanding something.
From what i can tell from your many posts, you only understand some of the philosophies, with zero understanding on what insights are or what meditation actually is beyond sitting down and closing your eyes.
What you do not understand, or gravely misunderstand at this point seems to me to be virtually everything in my opinion, and your attitude seems to be one of false open mindedness that leaves little hope of learning anything.
Rebirth doesn't mean reincarnation. "You" are reborn from moment to moment. In the sense of "after life" it means that the co-dependent properties that give rise to your stream of consciousness (specifically the 5 aggregates of Form, Feeling, Perception, Consciousness, and Will) will be recycled by the universe and transformed into new phenomena.
Ok, I entirely agree that my physical makeup will go on to create new phenomena.
As far as 5 aggregates... does the Buddha not teach that we should take his teachings with a grain of salt? He says use your own experience. How could we possibly learn that there are 5 aggregates? That's quite an assumption.
The karmic influences that your actions, words, and thoughts have given rise to will continue to manifest in new actions, words, and thoughts. It's constant cause and effect, and in none of this mass of suffering can one point to the concept of an eternal abiding self migrating from one body to the next. The mechanisms involved in transferrence of Karma through the vastness and infinitude of space and time are impossible to comprehend and simple faith in the existence of such mechanisms is all that is needed in order to have comprehension of the path and the reasons for following it.
Why have faith? Again, Buddha taught not to take his teachings because he taught them. As far as his original teachings, faith should not be a part of Buddhism? I understand that actions and deeds have consequences, infinitely many. If that is Karma I suppose I believe in that.
From what i can tell from your many posts, you only understand some of the philosophies, with zero understanding on what insights are or what meditation actually is beyond sitting down and closing your eyes.
What you do not understand, or gravely misunderstand at this point seems to me to be virtually everything in my opinion, and your attitude seems to be one of false open mindedness that leaves little hope of learning anything.
Cordially
You assume too much. "What you can tell", is not saying much.
Thankfully you are not the judge of what I'm learning and getting out of it. And I know I'm not a masochist.
Some of us aren't buddhists. We simply want to learn for ourselves without having faith in any one thing and any one person. I think you should respect that. As the Buddha certainly would. So maybe I'm as much of a buddhist as you are. Not that I care about the label.
So what about enlightenment lasting after death? Although my atoms may be "reborn" into new phenomena, the matter of whether or not I was enlightened has VERY little impact on what happens to my body after death (other than what my deeds brought about during my life, of course).
Some of us aren't buddhists. We simply want to learn for ourselves without having faith in any one thing and any one person.
yes, i see nothing wrong with this.
But the problem with wanting to learn the way that you seem to be doing is a trap that I believe should be avoided.
All you can learn in this way are the philosophy, which is not Buddhism but learning philosophies as an academic exercise.
and misinterpretation of insights and concrete concepts as being abstract, which often create very difficult barriers to break if one were to then actually begin his journey.
Hence my previous post. Which was an attempt at making you reconsider your approach.
So what about enlightenment lasting after death? Although my atoms may be "reborn" into new phenomena, the matter of whether or not I was enlightened has VERY little impact on what happens to my body after death (other than what my deeds brought about during my life, of course).
There is no "after death" once enlightenment is attained. There is no birth, death, old age, sickness, lamentation, or despair. These are all dilusional concepts created by the fettered mind. Nirvana is not a thought, or a concept, or a notion, or an experience, or not not any of these things. It is beyond words to describe. To ask the question, "does enlightenment last after death," is to prove one's unenlightened state. I cannot explain this concept properly and wish I could sit down and talk about it in more detail.
But the problem with wanting to learn the way that you seem to be doing is a trap that I believe should be avoided.
All you can learn in this way are the philosophy, which is not Buddhism but learning philosophies as an academic exercise.
and misinterpretation of insights and concrete concepts as being abstract, which often create very difficult barriers to break if one were to then actually begin his journey.
Who said my journey hasn't begun? My journey has begun years ago. I don't misinterpret insights. Because I don't rely on other people's insights. I can agree with something they said if it makes logical sense to me. But my insights are my own.
Buddhism is the path the Buddha taught. But he wasn't practicing buddhism during those 6 years. He was testing all hypothesis himself and making mistakes in the process.
I can even see how buddhism in theory might provide exactly what it says it provides....but I can still want it in a different way.
Again, I don't like labels. I don't like being partial. Rest assured I'm learning a lot by posting in these forums. I don't care if it's apparent. Because that's not the point. For all you know I could just be playing devil advocate's and reaping the benefits in secrecy.
So what about enlightenment lasting after death? Although my atoms may be "reborn" into new phenomena, the matter of whether or not I was enlightened has VERY little impact on what happens to my body after death (other than what my deeds brought about during my life, of course).
It's already happened trillions of times in the past day or so.
There is no "after death" once enlightenment is attained. There is no birth, death, old age, sickness, lamentation, or despair. These are all dilusional concepts created by the fettered mind. Nirvana is not a thought, or a concept, or a notion, or an experience, or not not any of these things. It is beyond words to describe. To ask the question, "does enlightenment last after death," is to prove one's unenlightened state. I cannot explain this concept properly and wish I could sit down and talk about it in more detail.
How can enlightenment exist anywhere other than the mind?
Nirvana exists and does not exist, and neither exists nor doesnt exist. It is neither here nor there, and it is here and everywhere. You cannot state that it is "from the mind" or "in the brain" because that's like saying there is some "thing" that is enlightenment that resides in a ball of goop in our heads. The ball of goop helps us to realize nirvana but it, itself, is not nirvana.
just missing each other, that's all. we don't acquire Nirvana, we realize it. it's a state of non-grasping of the mind. it has no affect on what happens to the body at death. to say that there is no "after death" after enlightenment is only half... there is no "after death" before enlightenment either (we just haven't realized this). this is why you miss each other.
just missing each other, that's all. we don't acquire Nirvana, we realize it. it's a state of non-grasping of the mind. it has no affect on what happens to the body at death. to say that there is no "after death" after enlightenment is only half... there is no "after death" before enlightenment either (we just haven't realized this). this is why you miss each other.
Ah, perhaps I misunderstood, then.
I realize that death signals the end of consciousness, so there is no "after death".
There is not before birth either. And you'd be hard pressed to remember any state of being before it. No one lives their life based on what happened before consciousness, so I don't see why anyone should care too much about the after consciousness either.
This is exactly right, there is no birth either; not truly. There's only change. Both words, "unborn" and "deathless", are applied to the mind that has realized Nirvana. That mind sees both truths in their fullness. There never was a separate self born into this world or that will die, and unwholesome mental states will not again arise in these aggregates.
This is exactly right, there is no birth either; not truly. There's only change. Both words, "unborn" and "deathless", are applied to the mind that has realized Nirvana. That mind sees both truths in their fullness. There never was a separate self born into this world or that will die, and unwholesome mental states will not again arise in these aggregates.
Consciousness does come into being though. Memory comes into being too.
A mind that has realized Nirvana is not a separate self either.
Maybe we're getting our wires crossed. The mind of one who has realized Nirvana is no different than any other, except that it no longer grasps/clings to sense pleasures, to identity, becoming/annihilation etc. The aggregates still function the same, there's simply not Ignorance left to give rise to wrong view or unwholesome states.
Maybe we're getting our wires crossed. The mind of one who has realized Nirvana is no different than any other, except that it no longer grasps/clings to sense pleasures, to identity, becoming/annihilation etc. The aggregates still function the same, there's simply not Ignorance left to give rise to wrong view or unwholesome states.
The mind, being interdependent with the brain, is still subject to the rules of physics though.
Exactly. I wasn't contesting that, that's why I think we're getting our wires crossed.
Well, I was addressing this particular sentence : "Both words, "unborn" and "deathless", are applied to the mind that has realized Nirvana."
I don't really know what you mean by unborn and deathless. Causality still applies right? Nirvana still has a beginning and and end. Or don't you agree?
It means that you no longer create that duality of "birth" and "death" as marking the coming-into-being of a separate individual. It's not. There is no birth and no death, only transient formations changing into other transient formations. There's no permanence to this, no self, and our clinging to identity/sense pleasures/becoming/non-becoming can only lead to suffering.
Waking up isn't so hard; it's giving up the dream that's a pain.
Nirvana is non-clinging. Just equate those two words. It's not a thing, not a state of mind, but the absence of clinging. As such there's no beginning or end inherent in the definition of Nirvana. Enlightenment as the realization of Nirvana marks the beginning of a mind that no longer clings, and so unwholesome states no longer arise. Causality is always intact, it is only the conditionality of ignorance begets suffering that ceases during "this life". Upon death the aggregates return to the emptiness and disperse; we could each have a part of (what used to be part of) Siddhartha Gautama within us, for all we know.
What we do in this life doesn't change the Dharma; doesn't change how the universe works. Awakening is a rather radical shift in perspective of the mind, and it leads to perfect equanimity and peace; it has nothing to do with causality, but rather a break in the chain of Dependent Origination (simply meaning that one "wrong step" is no longer taken by the mind, so the cycle doesn't repeat any longer).
Well, I was addressing this particular sentence : "Both words, "unborn" and "deathless", are applied to the mind that has realized Nirvana."
I don't really know what you mean by unborn and deathless. Causality still applies right? Nirvana still has a beginning and and end. Or don't you agree?
This goes to the same place as another thread here. If you view consciousness as an epiphenomena of matter, there is no possibility of understanding the position of one who views matter as an epiphenomena of consciousness ( a mere confused appearance, actually ), and vice versa.
Both however are premises we accept upon faith alone. One is attested to by the empirical science of the last hundred years, one by the philosophical tradition of 2500 years of Buddhist theory and praxis. Personally, I have yet to meet an enlightened scientist but I have met many enlightened teachers. I'll go with the latter approach.
It means that you no longer create that duality of "birth" and "death" as marking the coming-into-being of a separate individual. It's not. There is no birth and no death, only transient formations changing into other transient formations. There's no permanence to this, no self, and our clinging to identity/sense pleasures/becoming/non-becoming can only lead to suffering.
Waking up isn't so hard; it's giving up the dream that's a pain.
What do you think I'm saying exactly? The rebirths I'm experiencing right now, as time passes, are still very far from turning me into a corpse. There is still a lot more in common between my yesterday self and my today self, than with my dead self.
In that sense, "I" is just a means to work with reality. We use abstractions to work with reality, because we are creatures of interpretation.
The mole's interpretation of reality is different from mine, by the mere fact it has no eyes. What does that say about our common reality? The reality I and the mole share?
Does it matter? The mole works with what it has, and I work with what I have. Do you see where I'm going with this?
Does a dream exist? Well what do you mean by exist? Using the dream as a metaphor, you can claim dreams don't exist or see them as the abstractions they are.
Nothing exists outside of our perceptions and abstractions. Time doesn't exist, proximity, love, compassion...whatever....they are just concepts. That does not mean one must throw away all concepts to achieve true lasting happiness.
Saying that self doesn't exist is like saying compassion doesn't exist. Nirvana is also just as much an abstract concept as that of self.
Nirvana is non-clinging. Just equate those two words. It's not a thing, not a state of mind, but the absence of clinging. As such there's no beginning or end inherent in the definition of Nirvana. Enlightenment as the realization of Nirvana marks the beginning of a mind that no longer clings, and so unwholesome states no longer arise. Causality is always intact, it is only the conditionality of ignorance begets suffering that ceases during "this life". Upon death the aggregates return to the emptiness and disperse; we could each have a part of (what used to be part of) Siddhartha Gautama within us, for all we know.
Everything made sense up until the last sentence lol Are you coming from a mystical point of view? Because I'm not very mystical. If you mean his atoms, well sure, I agree it's entirely possible.
What we do in this life doesn't change the Dharma; doesn't change how the universe works. Awakening is a rather radical shift in perspective of the mind, and it leads to perfect equanimity and peace; it has nothing to do with causality, but rather a break in the chain of Dependent Origination (simply meaning that one "wrong step" is no longer taken by the mind, so the cycle doesn't repeat any longer).
What we do in this life doesn't change how the universe works. But it changes how we perceive it.
And I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that at any moment even a Buddha has the capacity to make mistakes. For this awakening to make sense in conjunction with the laws of physics it has to arise and to cease at some point. Otherwise there would't be a path to enlightenment in the first place.
This goes to the same place as another thread here. If you view consciousness as an epiphenomena of matter, there is no possibility of understanding the position of one who views matter as an epiphenomena of consciousness ( a mere confused appearance, actually ), and vice versa.
Who views matter as an epiphenomena of consciousness? I don't understand the words epiphenomena too well. Could you please explain in simpler terms what you meant above?
Both however are premises we accept upon faith alone. One is attested to by the empirical science of the last hundred years, one by the philosophical tradition of 2500 years of Buddhist theory and praxis. Personally, I have yet to meet an enlightened scientist but I have met many enlightened teachers. I'll go with the latter approach.
Well I wouldn't presume to know if anyone is enlightened or not. First they would have to define what they meant by that anyway
I don't base myself on faith when I believe in scientists. That's the axis of the
problem here. I use their theories insofar as they make some sense and I can derive something good from them. I don't base Newton's claims on faith. I use his formula and immediately see the results.
STILL, I know that even though he was regarded as a genius, his theory is incomplete...so essentially only true from a certain point of view and certain level of abstraction. Subsequent physicists expanded on it. He did not find the truth.
The laws of the world depend on the level of abstraction you are considering. I ate a sandwhich. Was it my mouth that ate it, or my stomach. Was it my awareness? Does the fact that none of these things ate the sandwhich make me conclude I didn't actually eat the sandwhich?
I'm not sure that I see any argument between us, though I would clarify that there is "something" that exists regardless of whether we're experiencing or not. The teachings of no-self do not mean there is nothing there. It is true that our world is mind-made in that it's defined by our senses and thoughts, but the phenomena that are experienced (the experiences) do exist, yet are empty of self and of permanence. We sorta have to combine all of the teachings together to see how they play off of each other; if we take one view without it encompassing all of the others, it is the wrong view.
Emptiness is the combination of impermanence and no-self (it really doesn't need to be a separate concept). Suchness is what "is" there, as it is regardless of our perceptions or conceptions.
As to the atoms thing, yes that's what I meant. There's nothing mystical or supernatural about any of this, truly. Think of how many parts of different plants and animals and the like have transformed and become parts of, temporarily, this mind-body complex. And where did those plants and animals come from? Everything that is here now used to be something else. That's all.
I'm not sure that I see any argument between us, though I would clarify that there is "something" that exists regardless of whether we're experiencing or not. The teachings of no-self do not mean there is nothing there. It is true that our world is mind-made in that it's defined by our senses and thoughts, but the phenomena that are experienced (the experiences) do exist, yet are empty of self and of permanence. We sorta have to combine all of the teachings together to see how they play off of each other; if we take one view without it encompassing all of the others, it is the wrong view.
It's exactly because of that that I'm still not satisfied by any one explanation of non-self. I think I got it, but it's just a matter of....
...say I understand impermanence. It makes all the sense in the world. I might bear it in mind in ordinary life, but that does not mean I don't even start a job because I know it's going to end...or whatever. So it doesn't matter that impermanence is the "TRUTH", because I will still strive to keep my job if I like it. I can't allow myself to die if I'm fired, but permanence doesn't lose it's value. It's like a tool.
And that's how I see the self too. It's a tool. And arguably the most important of them all. That's why i think it should be handled with care. Quite frankly I don't think I disagree with the buddhist view as much as it might sound sometimes, I just think I can't articulate myself that well, and also that there is a lot of misinformation and misinterpretations and assumptions about what it is out there.
As to the atoms thing, yes that's what I meant. There's nothing mystical or supernatural about any of this, truly. Think of how many parts of different plants and animals and the like have transformed and become parts of, temporarily, this mind-body complex. And where did those plants and animals come from? Everything that is here now used to be something else. That's all.
That's why we have to be careful. When the Buddha taught of no-self, he meant exactly that there is no abiding or separate self. There's something there, but it's not how we have come to think of it. Life isn't an illusion, but for us it's a delusion.
Don't take no-self/anatta to mean anything else, and you'll be good to go.
An epiphenomenon (plural - epiphenomena) is a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon. So either one sees mind as a primary or matter. These are equally faith positions, as either position is not falsifiable. I personally see what is called matter as little more than a category of percepts with certain characteristics, a certain inertia by no means unalterable and concrete.
As to whether you ate a sandwich or not, that is exactly what is considered conventional truth. We can agree that there is a certain appearance without making any claims that it is real beyond what is apparent. I can assure you that as real as a sense of separate identity is to you, it is not real to me.
It is almost laughable to me in terms of personal experience, really, an outlandish joke at our expense that if it can be seen for what it is can't do us any more harm. The thought "I am the body" is a vicious enemy and true imprisonment.
An epiphenomenon (plural - epiphenomena) is a secondary phenomenon that occurs alongside or in parallel to a primary phenomenon. So either one sees mind as a primary or matter. These are equally faith positions, as either position is not falsifiable. I personally see what is called matter as little more than a category of percepts with certain characteristics, a certain inertia by no means unalterable and concrete.
Mind can change matter and matter can change mind. If I force myself to take a more positive attitude towards life, I will, inevitably change my brain chemistry. The mind is not independent from matter. And brain matter is certainly not independent from what we do in our lives.
As to whether you ate a sandwich or not, that is exactly what is considered conventional truth. We can agree that there is a certain appearance without making any claims that it is real beyond what is apparent. I can assure you that as real as a sense of separate identity is to you, it is not real to me.
I'm saying nothing more than truth is relative. I can live my life saying people don't actually eat sandwiches because that is not the actual truth, or I can merely stick with conventional truth.....OR I can deal with both.
It is almost laughable to me in terms of personal experience, really, an outlandish joke at our expense that if it can be seen for what it is can't do us any more harm. The thought "I am the body" is a vicious enemy and true imprisonment.
Maybe there is a truth beyond nirvana. The nirvana of a more evolved alien race might be more accurate. That's why I don't cling to nirvana or not-self either.
It's a matter of choice. I choose to deal with the notion of self insofar as I'm surrounded by people who address me as a separate identity and insofar as we all tend to live in conventional truth anyway. It doesn't mean there aren't instances where I take different approaches.
If I try explaining a certain phenomenon to a 6 year old kid using the same terms I would use when addressing my quantum physicist friend....it wouldn't be very skillful. That to me is what dealing with reality is all about. Levels of abstraction.
That to me is what dealing with reality is all about. Levels of abstraction.
Yes, you relate to life through your intellect. You want to confine your speculation to things that make sense to you. That's all well and good. However, we won't have much overlap.
You approach Buddhism as an abstraction, I approach it as a guide to contemplation. While I was very intellectual in my approach when I was young, I don't have much time for it now. There are for me far clearer means of knowledge. To each their own. Without shared experience, conversation is of necessity limited.
Buddhism is equal part in wisdom, action, compassion and vows. It seems that within this thread, most of the content ends up in a intellectual debate based on attachement to one's egotistical views and craving for fame.
What good is buddhism when it's not put into action in everyday life, and rather stuck with fighting over superiority in words?
Comments
I'm not suggesting that the Buddha's methods are wrong. I simply am open to the possibility that they might be and am open to the possibility the goal might not be that great.
And you are assuming the aim is enlightenment. Not everyone wants to be enlightened. I don't doubt the 8fold path might bring happiness and well-being if I stick with it. But I also know, like any other model the goal is to reprogram oneself. After I'm reprogrammed, of course I'll prefer it. Just like I prefer my ego, right now, than I do buddhism.
If enlightenment required a brain, it would end at death. If that was the end of it, who would spend their time meditating? Not this cowboy.
Siddhartha Gotama was a man who discovered the path to end suffering.
Siddhartha Gotama was referred to as the Buddha, the Awoken One.
Siddhartha Gotama was a man.
Of course it ends at death! Our entire ability to experience ends at death! If this is a universal Buddhist belief then I think I have found the wrong philosophy.
Says who?
And I don't get your point.
While deluding yourself is fine. You will possibly mis-direct others posting on here, then the karmic consequences will be even more severe...
If you don't believe in karma then what can one do?
What did I say about the Buddha that would classify as slandering?
You want me to shut up? I believe in causality yes. And morality. But I'm not doing anything wrong, so I don't understood what your beef is.
There is no way for me to force you to understand the things I am trying to explain to you. So instead ... I love you
That seems an inescapable conclusion. Happy trails.
Then eat and drink for tomorrow we die.
Love is an action. Ignoring me, is not gonna make me gain anything. So you certainly aren't showing me any love
Can you just afford me one small thing though? Can you at least tell me what it is you think I don't understand? I don't want an explanation, just what you think I'm not understanding.
Because I wasn't aware I wasn't understanding something.
Firstly, this is a written media so it would more accurately be libeling the Buddha. Secondly, I don't see how you can consider him to be engaging in anything like that.
Asking questions and stating viewpoints in a public forum should be possible without having divine retribution called down on oneself. Epicurus doesn't present himself as a buddhist teacher so how can his heartfelt opinions be said to be wrongdoing?
So you believe in rebirth?
And being that I don't, Buddhism isn't possible to follow? I still want to end the suffering of sentient beings. That's much more important than mystical, unprovable metaphysical beliefs such as rebirth, which no rational person has any reason to believe (or disbelieve). It's like the flying spaghetti monster. It can't be proven or disproven, but that is no reason to believe in it.
Helping others is a wonderful sentiment. However, I am not sure that Buddhism will make much sense if you believe everything ends at death. Buddhism does not posit a soul, but it does posit that confusion continues. Rebirth is not just something that happens at death-- we are in a constant state of flux.
From my point of view, there is only awareness and its field. Because of our labeling processes we invent ideas like me, mine, I, birth, death, etc. They don't apply to anything substantial. Most certainly there is a connection between the brain and states of consciousness, however that is not exhaustive of all types of cognition, some of which do not require the brain. Otherwise, Republicans would not be able to function and attend Tea Party rallies now, would they?
I don't want to discourage you. There is much to be gained from the writings of Pema Chodron for example on how to deal with life and how to help others. I am just concerned that you understand that karma and some continuity between what we see as separate lives exist. There are many points of view on how that happens. i would just suggest keeping an open mind. Rebirth isn't a simplistic metaphysical notion and not everyone that believes in it thinks that they were the Queen of Sheba or Mandarava in their past life.
The karmic influences that your actions, words, and thoughts have given rise to will continue to manifest in new actions, words, and thoughts. It's constant cause and effect, and in none of this mass of suffering can one point to the concept of an eternal abiding self migrating from one body to the next. The mechanisms involved in transferrence of Karma through the vastness and infinitude of space and time are impossible to comprehend and simple faith in the existence of such mechanisms is all that is needed in order to have comprehension of the path and the reasons for following it.
What you do not understand, or gravely misunderstand at this point seems to me to be virtually everything in my opinion, and your attitude seems to be one of false open mindedness that leaves little hope of learning anything.
Cordially
Ok, I entirely agree that my physical makeup will go on to create new phenomena.
As far as 5 aggregates... does the Buddha not teach that we should take his teachings with a grain of salt? He says use your own experience. How could we possibly learn that there are 5 aggregates? That's quite an assumption.
Why have faith? Again, Buddha taught not to take his teachings because he taught them. As far as his original teachings, faith should not be a part of Buddhism? I understand that actions and deeds have consequences, infinitely many. If that is Karma I suppose I believe in that.
You assume too much. "What you can tell", is not saying much.
Thankfully you are not the judge of what I'm learning and getting out of it. And I know I'm not a masochist.
Some of us aren't buddhists. We simply want to learn for ourselves without having faith in any one thing and any one person. I think you should respect that. As the Buddha certainly would. So maybe I'm as much of a buddhist as you are. Not that I care about the label.
Sounds fine to me.
So what about enlightenment lasting after death? Although my atoms may be "reborn" into new phenomena, the matter of whether or not I was enlightened has VERY little impact on what happens to my body after death (other than what my deeds brought about during my life, of course).
But the problem with wanting to learn the way that you seem to be doing is a trap that I believe should be avoided.
All you can learn in this way are the philosophy, which is not Buddhism but learning philosophies as an academic exercise.
and misinterpretation of insights and concrete concepts as being abstract, which often create very difficult barriers to break if one were to then actually begin his journey.
Hence my previous post. Which was an attempt at making you reconsider your approach.
There is no "after death" once enlightenment is attained. There is no birth, death, old age, sickness, lamentation, or despair. These are all dilusional concepts created by the fettered mind. Nirvana is not a thought, or a concept, or a notion, or an experience, or not not any of these things. It is beyond words to describe. To ask the question, "does enlightenment last after death," is to prove one's unenlightened state. I cannot explain this concept properly and wish I could sit down and talk about it in more detail.
Who said my journey hasn't begun? My journey has begun years ago. I don't misinterpret insights. Because I don't rely on other people's insights. I can agree with something they said if it makes logical sense to me. But my insights are my own.
Buddhism is the path the Buddha taught. But he wasn't practicing buddhism during those 6 years. He was testing all hypothesis himself and making mistakes in the process.
I can even see how buddhism in theory might provide exactly what it says it provides....but I can still want it in a different way.
Again, I don't like labels. I don't like being partial. Rest assured I'm learning a lot by posting in these forums. I don't care if it's apparent. Because that's not the point. For all you know I could just be playing devil advocate's and reaping the benefits in secrecy.
It's already happened trillions of times in the past day or so.
How can enlightenment exist anywhere other than the mind?
If it is from the mind it must be from the brain.
Brain is physical, it dies.
And no one cares about what happened before they first became self-aware as a kid.
I understand that it becomes something new. By death, I mean end of consciousness, which happens whether you like it or not.
@Talisman: you're right
just missing each other, that's all. we don't acquire Nirvana, we realize it. it's a state of non-grasping of the mind. it has no affect on what happens to the body at death. to say that there is no "after death" after enlightenment is only half... there is no "after death" before enlightenment either (we just haven't realized this). this is why you miss each other.
Ah, perhaps I misunderstood, then.
I realize that death signals the end of consciousness, so there is no "after death".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odWIPhj-ivo
Great video!
Consciousness does come into being though. Memory comes into being too.
A mind that has realized Nirvana is not a separate self either.
The mind, being interdependent with the brain, is still subject to the rules of physics though.
Well, I was addressing this particular sentence : "Both words, "unborn" and "deathless", are applied to the mind that has realized Nirvana."
I don't really know what you mean by unborn and deathless. Causality still applies right? Nirvana still has a beginning and and end. Or don't you agree?
Waking up isn't so hard; it's giving up the dream that's a pain.
Nirvana is non-clinging. Just equate those two words. It's not a thing, not a state of mind, but the absence of clinging. As such there's no beginning or end inherent in the definition of Nirvana. Enlightenment as the realization of Nirvana marks the beginning of a mind that no longer clings, and so unwholesome states no longer arise. Causality is always intact, it is only the conditionality of ignorance begets suffering that ceases during "this life". Upon death the aggregates return to the emptiness and disperse; we could each have a part of (what used to be part of) Siddhartha Gautama within us, for all we know.
What we do in this life doesn't change the Dharma; doesn't change how the universe works. Awakening is a rather radical shift in perspective of the mind, and it leads to perfect equanimity and peace; it has nothing to do with causality, but rather a break in the chain of Dependent Origination (simply meaning that one "wrong step" is no longer taken by the mind, so the cycle doesn't repeat any longer).
This goes to the same place as another thread here. If you view consciousness as an epiphenomena of matter, there is no possibility of understanding the position of one who views matter as an epiphenomena of consciousness ( a mere confused appearance, actually ), and vice versa.
Both however are premises we accept upon faith alone. One is attested to by the empirical science of the last hundred years, one by the philosophical tradition of 2500 years of Buddhist theory and praxis. Personally, I have yet to meet an enlightened scientist but I have met many enlightened teachers. I'll go with the latter approach.
What do you think I'm saying exactly? The rebirths I'm experiencing right now, as time passes, are still very far from turning me into a corpse. There is still a lot more in common between my yesterday self and my today self, than with my dead self.
In that sense, "I" is just a means to work with reality. We use abstractions to work with reality, because we are creatures of interpretation.
The mole's interpretation of reality is different from mine, by the mere fact it has no eyes. What does that say about our common reality? The reality I and the mole share?
Does it matter? The mole works with what it has, and I work with what I have. Do you see where I'm going with this?
Does a dream exist? Well what do you mean by exist? Using the dream as a metaphor, you can claim dreams don't exist or see them as the abstractions they are.
Nothing exists outside of our perceptions and abstractions. Time doesn't exist, proximity, love, compassion...whatever....they are just concepts. That does not mean one must throw away all concepts to achieve true lasting happiness.
Saying that self doesn't exist is like saying compassion doesn't exist. Nirvana is also just as much an abstract concept as that of self.
Everything made sense up until the last sentence lol
What we do in this life doesn't change how the universe works. But it changes how we perceive it.
And I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that at any moment even a Buddha has the capacity to make mistakes. For this awakening to make sense in conjunction with the laws of physics it has to arise and to cease at some point. Otherwise there would't be a path to enlightenment in the first place.
Who views matter as an epiphenomena of consciousness? I don't understand the words epiphenomena too well. Could you please explain in simpler terms what you meant above?
Well I wouldn't presume to know if anyone is enlightened or not. First they would have to define what they meant by that anyway
I don't base myself on faith when I believe in scientists. That's the axis of the
problem here. I use their theories insofar as they make some sense and I can derive something good from them. I don't base Newton's claims on faith. I use his formula and immediately see the results.
STILL, I know that even though he was regarded as a genius, his theory is incomplete...so essentially only true from a certain point of view and certain level of abstraction. Subsequent physicists expanded on it. He did not find the truth.
The laws of the world depend on the level of abstraction you are considering. I ate a sandwhich. Was it my mouth that ate it, or my stomach. Was it my awareness? Does the fact that none of these things ate the sandwhich make me conclude I didn't actually eat the sandwhich?
Emptiness is the combination of impermanence and no-self (it really doesn't need to be a separate concept). Suchness is what "is" there, as it is regardless of our perceptions or conceptions.
As to the atoms thing, yes that's what I meant. There's nothing mystical or supernatural about any of this, truly.
It's exactly because of that that I'm still not satisfied by any one explanation of non-self. I think I got it, but it's just a matter of....
...say I understand impermanence. It makes all the sense in the world. I might bear it in mind in ordinary life, but that does not mean I don't even start a job because I know it's going to end...or whatever. So it doesn't matter that impermanence is the "TRUTH", because I will still strive to keep my job if I like it. I can't allow myself to die if I'm fired, but permanence doesn't lose it's value. It's like a tool.
And that's how I see the self too. It's a tool. And arguably the most important of them all. That's why i think it should be handled with care. Quite frankly I don't think I disagree with the buddhist view as much as it might sound sometimes, I just think I can't articulate myself that well, and also that there is a lot of misinformation and misinterpretations and assumptions about what it is out there.
Sure, I completely agree.
Don't take no-self/anatta to mean anything else, and you'll be good to go.
As to whether you ate a sandwich or not, that is exactly what is considered conventional truth. We can agree that there is a certain appearance without making any claims that it is real beyond what is apparent. I can assure you that as real as a sense of separate identity is to you, it is not real to me.
It is almost laughable to me in terms of personal experience, really, an outlandish joke at our expense that if it can be seen for what it is can't do us any more harm. The thought "I am the body" is a vicious enemy and true imprisonment.
Mind can change matter and matter can change mind. If I force myself to take a more positive attitude towards life, I will, inevitably change my brain chemistry. The mind is not independent from matter. And brain matter is certainly not independent from what we do in our lives.
I'm saying nothing more than truth is relative. I can live my life saying people don't actually eat sandwiches because that is not the actual truth, or I can merely stick with conventional truth.....OR I can deal with both.
Maybe there is a truth beyond nirvana. The nirvana of a more evolved alien race might be more accurate. That's why I don't cling to nirvana or not-self either.
It's a matter of choice. I choose to deal with the notion of self insofar as I'm surrounded by people who address me as a separate identity and insofar as we all tend to live in conventional truth anyway. It doesn't mean there aren't instances where I take different approaches.
If I try explaining a certain phenomenon to a 6 year old kid using the same terms I would use when addressing my quantum physicist friend....it wouldn't be very skillful. That to me is what dealing with reality is all about. Levels of abstraction.
Yes, you relate to life through your intellect. You want to confine your speculation to things that make sense to you. That's all well and good. However, we won't have much overlap.
You approach Buddhism as an abstraction, I approach it as a guide to contemplation. While I was very intellectual in my approach when I was young, I don't have much time for it now. There are for me far clearer means of knowledge. To each their own. Without shared experience, conversation is of necessity limited.
What good is buddhism when it's not put into action in everyday life, and rather stuck with fighting over superiority in words?
"Life is a journey, not a destination." — Ralph Waldo Emerson